In thinking there has been a massive cover up in the death of little Poppi Worthington ?? [Upsetting content warning added by MNHQ]

[BreadAndOliveOil]

I've namechanged for this as i'm local to the town this baby is from.

I cannot believe the huge fuck ups that have occured in investigating this childs death, this child had broken bones and other injuries indicating a serious sexual assault......no clear way of knowing as all evidence had been destroyed by the time police decided to investigate 9 months later. I cannot believe how little this has been reported in the media now the case is coming to court.

To top it all, nobody is being prosecuted for this babies death, not for the injuries sustained. She's dead, that's it. How can this be ?? I don't understand how this is able to happen ??!

I've linked one of the least, distressing articles. This really is one of the most upsetting cases i've heard of. I cannot believe that someone is in all probability getting away with the murder of this little girl. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/child-protection/12019722/Poppi-Worthington-Toddler-could-have-been-sexually-assaulted-before-unexplained-death-hearing-told.html

Poor baby, how anyone could hurt a baby or child is completely beyond me

Well I have had moments when mine were babies (esp DC1-the screamer) where I can quite easily see how someone could snap and do something dreadful.But a sustained campaign of cruelty is somethging else.

I'm reluctant to allow the 'sleepover' culture to take hold with my DC At grandparents? Cousins? Ex's? no step siblings? These are the places they are most at risk.

Just had a look at the reports today and I think I've worked out why they are so keen to cover it all up. I think a child might have committed the offences.

Well, alleged or potential offences.

Oh my Goodness.

Oh no, Boo!

I've come across cases like that in the past through work. Truly awful.

Oh G-- how awful.

So reporting on this child's death was banned from the very start? That's extraordinary, isn't it?

I'm not even sure that the sibling explanation (though plausible) could even explain this level of secrecy - incidentally, which report are you referring to Booyaka - because it seems so extreme. The authorities sought to withhold details of this case until 2029.

I just don't understand any of it.

If a child committed the offence that makes it more upsetting, but surely it could be reported that the perpetrator can't be named for legal reasons. If a child did do this they need serious he'll very quickly and the parents have a massive case to answer, why leave a baby in agony with broken bones. The whole thing is so upsetting and disturbing, poor Poppi looks such a sweet child, it's hard to understand why these things can happen and why they are dealt with so inconsistently.

I assume there was a child protection case concerning the other children, and it's the norm for reporting to be banned in those cases. Presumably the newspapers were able to persuade the judge to lift the ban because there are obviously issues which go beyond the child protection one.

If it was one of the children, that's worse imo. What drives a child to do that to a sibling? (I assume it was a sibling). Is the child getting treatment? How do you rehabilitate a child that has murdered a little girl in such a grim way?

I don't think they know for sure who did what. But the father's legal team have an 'alternative unifying hypothesis' on how the injuries were caused and by whom. It's not the children's care proceedings that are the issue it's the conclusions on how she died. They are being withheld in the interests of her siblings. The mother and father want these released (presumably there is something in there which shows them in a better light). It's not being released in the interests of the siblings. Which is unusual because, for example in the case of Baby P and Daniel Pelka, information was released although there were siblings. So this is a bit unusual. It sounds like there is medical opinion which possibly backs up this hypothesis too.

Anyway, by the looks of the judgement what they are doing is further investigation of the case to determine what has happened and they expect there to be a further judgement in the future when much of it will be made public. The judge says something about not wanting a wave of negative publicity now which may be contradicted when the complete judgement is made. So it will be released when they reach the final conclusion.

I expect 2029 is when their youngest surviving child will turn 18, and that part of the issue is that they wanted to hush up potentially flawed care proceedings and in the process would create a situation where the parents would never be able to get their kids back even if there was strong evidence both of them were innocent.

*Wicked,I am an old woman now and remember my granny and mother being vigilant about older children playing with young ones and especially playing 'hiding go seek' .

I was the same when my turn came.Sleepovers not to be contemplated.Who would even send children to sleep in a house where you only have scant acquaintance with the occupants?*

Yes. And we didn't grow up any the worse for it either.

Agree with OP and thought the same thing. A child, baby even, dies in this way and everyone just goes quiet and nothing much happens. Horrific. The fact that those involved to still walk the streets and have the potential to do this again.
Poor baby. This should never have happened and sadly this will happen again. What a mess.

This is the judgement for this week:

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2015/35.html

AnotherBusyMum, we don't know who, if anybody, did anything.

The press who are pursuing having the restriction orders released include The Guardian. They are not known for going for salacious child abuse stories or the 'paedos - hang em and flog em' type of story. But they do a lot of stories on the family courts, miscarriages of justice and secrecy so I suspect that is their angle and I think there are probably a lot of doubts hanging over the case.

The reports from the court earlier this week said that the claims of sexual abuse came from one paediatrician who is not a specialist in those types of injuries. There were forensic scientists who are specialists at detecting those signs of injuries in court this week testifying that any injuries she had were not consistent with sexual abuse.

Bumping this thread because it's in the news again, as a family court has ruled that Poppi Worthington was sexually assaulted by her father before her death.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/19/poppi-worthington-baby-was-sexually-assaulted-before-death-says-judge?CMP=twt_b-gdnnews

Yes, I saw heard that on the news today too. Also, if I heard it right, a (probably deliberately) vague mention that nothing could be reported before for legal reasons.

I was left wondering if that meant there had been other prosecutions going on, and this information was kept confidential until they were concluded?

It's dreadful :(

Forgive me my pitchforky moment here, I don't have them very often and the absolute last thing I want to do is prejudice any trial, but I am desperate for whoever allowed this cover-up to happen to be prosecuted and sent to prison for a very long time. Not for as long as Poppy's murderer, no, but whoever is responsible for the failings in the systems that should have provided justice for her!

Is this to avoid another Baby P? Well - more accurately to avoid the aftermath?

"Cumbria police said one officer was suspended and had since retired and the other two had moved to different roles."

How convenient for them.

I read the Guardian article this morning. It was the first time I heard of Poppi and this whole case. I feel sick in my stomach that this poor little baby was failed so miserably in life and death.

I don't really understand what this means now the father has been found guilty. Will he be/has he been arrested?

How could anyone do that to a baby? Poor, poor baby. I hope that justice will prevail in the end.

The overriding rhetoric on mumsnet is that sex offenders should not be named until they are found guilty of a crime. But if that were the case, this man would still not have been publicly named (and probably never would, given the absence of any criminal proceedings). This kind of case is a good example of why we must continue have open justice in this country.

The family courts and the coroners' courts are hideously secretive and in my (extensive, in this area) experience coroners in particular seem to think they can make up the law as they go along. Indeed in this case, the first coroner didn't even name the child, making a mockery of our court system. Coroners are even excempt from the FOI act, meaning we cannot even ask them basic details about the types of verdicts they are returning. They have zero public accountability.

I hope that the truth is eventually uncovered, but I doubt it will be.

I've been trying to understand - now the judge has agreed the dad abused her, will the dad be sentenced? Or will the police f-ck ups mean he can't be prosecuted?

This case makes me sick to the stomach and ashamed to be a human being

Yes OP, sadly it appears YANBU. Just read the full judgements on BAILII.

The CPS have already said the parents won't face charges yet the judgement released today, which apportions responsibility firmly at the feet of the father, appears to be based on the same evidence the CPS would have been presented with when deciding not to prosecute.

I don't suppose there is any chance the father will ever face prosecution now either. Beggars belief really, that poor child.